At 1/20/13 12:27 PM, Protagonist wrote:
Haven't you heard of Bayonetta 2? Besides, Nintendo likes to keep things underwraps. We have no idea what they're going because they're doing it behind closed doors.

I think that actually hurts them in the long run. Being so secretive, Nintendo sometimes waits until the last six months to release new game information.
It is good that Bayonetta 2 is a Wii U exclusive, but it is not a system seller.

I really hope, that Nintendo get's more 3rd party content for 2013. It would really suck if the Wii U turned into the Virtual Boy...We all know had bad that went...

At 1/20/13 03:33 PM, Mismo wrote:
The Wii-U does have a few ported titles such Arkham city and Mass effect 3.

Which is the problem, I could speculate why, it could boil down to money, developers not seeing the system as true next gen..

I love Nintendo, but they need to snatch up more exclusives and reboot older titles. Nintendo cannot rely on Mario and Zelda alone anymore to carry the system. The 3DS is doing pretty good. It had a rough start, and I would like to see the Wii U have a good turnaround.

But without more titles and news of upcoming games, it might lead to Wii U being neglected by gamers and developers alike.

They're probably afraid they wouldn't make an actual profit on any of it.

paying for ports. Or investing in major new Ips?

Nintendo's console is too weak hardware wise to really man up to that task, you'll either see a huge debuff in graphics, or the game will just be utterly shit all together.

And last of all, why is there marketing and upcoming game news so lacking?

Because Nintendo likes to keep their secrets, and keep their fans guessing what's coming next. Going to be honest the 3DS and WiiU surprised me with how pointless it all sounded. Honestly they're both pretty legit, too bad I don't care for most of the games on either.

I love Nintendo, and I know they can foretell a problem. In those board meetings with execs, this topic had to have come up.. what are they doing?!

Doing what they usually do, testing, developing, more testing, bug fixing, polishing, making sure everything in encrypted and secret and falling asleep very easily at night knowing whatever they do next they'll still get a great amount of sales. Nintendo's got innovation for lack of visuals, honestly that's pretty much the only thing that's really kept them in the game for this long. That and their capitalization on all off the "Gaming Icons' like Mario, and Sonic for instance. Controlling just Mario they did quite well, but both and ruining Sonic as a whole as a smack in the face to Sega? Well by damn, they sure really know how to pick their fights.

taking the internet seriously is the biggest sin one could commit on a forum.

No, those are opinions, and shitty ones at that. To think otherwise is not only doing a disservice to games today, but is clearly ignorant to the fact that the majority of fans so happen to enjoy those games, and are usually rated high for a good reason.

Those games are designed horribly, full of filler, and are not worth Nintendo's time.

Ok, then what games would constitute having excellent design, and be worthy of Nintendo's time then?

i mean check out these games then their pc/modern day(ps3/xbox 360) counterparts

Why are we talking about Wii games? The Wii U is out. The 3DS is out. Both surpass their predecessor in terms of power. Nintendo makes a lot of sacrifices that appear stupid to the casual obderver, but they ultimately save Nintendo a lot of money.

Censoring Mortal Kombat kept the politicians off their backs. Keeping cartridges for the N64 saved them thousands from what would be pirated into CDs.

Nintendo most likely has a lot of games that they don't want to slip out right now. Probably games many people will scoff at as well, which is why it is better to unveil them when they are at a playable stage, so people don't criticize them.

Nintendo most likely has a lot of games that they don't want to slip out right now. Probably games many people will scoff at as well, which is why it is better to unveil them when they are at a playable stage, so people don't criticize them.

If they were smart, instead of relying on 3rd party games, they'd bring back some franchises we haven't seen in a while like Star Fox, Earthbound, Mr. Game & Watch, or F-Zero. That would be awesome and breathe new life into the Wii U.

I had respect for you up until I read that. Besides, Nintendo couldn't even touch that franchise; Sony has all the rights to it and I really doubt that they're going to try and help out competition with handing over one of their most beloved series under the PlayStation brand.

And you said Assassin's Creed also. Haven't they already ported Assassin's Creed 3 to Wii U? Or am I just mistaken?

At 1/20/13 07:21 PM, orangebomb wrote:
No, those are opinions, and shitty ones at that. To think otherwise is not only doing a disservice to games today, but is clearly ignorant to the fact that the majority of fans so happen to enjoy those games, and are usually rated high for a good reason.

Lots of people like McDonalds and Justin Bieber. Does that make them good? Modern devs rely too much on realistic graphics, not enough on gameplay or innovation

Ok, then what games would constitute having excellent design, and be worthy of Nintendo's time then?

If they were smart, instead of relying on 3rd party games, they'd bring back some franchises we haven't seen in a while like Star Fox, Earthbound, Mr. Game & Watch, or F-Zero. That would be awesome and breathe new life into the Wii U.

And bring them back to their glory of what people want them to be. Every good franchise Nintendo has has become (forcefully) a different type of game

Starfox- Bring it back to a normal rail ship shooter
Earthbound- Never gonna happen
Game and Watch- Eh...
F-Zero- Make a decnt racing game

Lots of people like McDonalds and Justin Bieber. Does that make them good?

Which proves what exactly? If a lot people like something, then there will be more of it, that's basic econ 101.

Modern devs rely too much on realistic graphics, not enough on gameplay or innovation

Now you sound like that idiot Carbon64 who thinks that they should cut back on graphics just because there isn't enough gameplay or whatever, plus, it's not like developers intentionally sacrifice gameplay for better graphics if that's what your thinking. I get that gameplay is more important than graphics, {duh} but that DOESN'T mean that devs should half-ass the graphics on a game.

As for the innovation argument, there is no concrete answer to what innovation is, other than indie games/developers who are mostly shit and is popular with hipsters. These gamers can't be satisfied with what's out there now, despite having many different genres available if they take the time to look.

All of them subjective. Once again, innovation is not in concrete because it means so many things to different people. Why can't some people realize that we advance a lot in each generation of consoles and games?

No, those are opinions, and shitty ones at that.To think otherwise is not only doing a disservice to games today, but is clearly ignorant to the fact that the majority of fans so happen to enjoy those games, and are usually rated high for a good reason.

Those games are designed horribly, full of filler, and are not worth Nintendo's time.

Ok, then what games would constitute having excellent design, and be worthy of Nintendo's time then?

I am sorry, we must of got off on the wrong foot. Or did you miss the train heading to Denver State Hospital. Out of no where on unknown pretenses.You bash my statement by calling it "shitty" and not giving a explanation other than, "To think otherwise is not only doing a disservice to games today"

I just have to assume were not on the same courteous levels of conversation. Let alone start arguing like teenagers.

At 1/20/13 09:34 PM, Bobbybroccoli wrote:
They remade 64 for 3DS. It has not been forgotten.

A re-release of a 15 year old game, does not count

Two characters and a villain were in Brawl. Olimar and Pit from Kid Icarus were both in Brawl, the former having a game coming out this year, and the latter having his first game in decades last year.

Earthbound will not happen. The creator has been saying for years there will not be a Mother 4. He has mention some sort of Mother related thing, but at the same time, said it would not be a virtual console. Mother is done in the US.

Was in Brawl and Nintendo Land. See last point.

But it's stupid

This was in Nintendo Land, Wii Music, and Smash Bros for years. Most likely going to be made sooner or later.

No it wasn't. A charcter was in Brawl and it had a mini game or two based on it.

At 1/20/13 09:43 PM, orangebomb wrote:
Which proves what exactly? If a lot people like something, then there will be more of it, that's basic econ 101.

True. But my point is popularity has nothing to do with quality.

Now you sound like that idiot Carbon64 who thinks that they should cut back on graphics just because there isn't enough gameplay or whatever, plus, it's not like developers intentionally sacrifice gameplay for better graphics if that's what your thinking. I get that gameplay is more important than graphics, {duh} but that DOESN'T mean that devs should half-ass the graphics on a game.

No, I'm not saying they should half-ass graphics. I'm saying they should NOT half-ass gameplay, and not rely on graphics to sell games.

As for the innovation argument, there is no concrete answer to what innovation is, other than indie games/developers who are mostly shit and is popular with hipsters. These gamers can't be satisfied with what's out there now, despite having many different genres available if they take the time to look.

Major releases these days consist of shooting people. That's it. Games like Limbo or Braid, are innovative. Call of Duty, is not.

All of them subjective. Once again, innovation is not in concrete because it means so many things to different people. Why can't some people realize that we advance a lot in each generation of consoles and games?

Games haven't been evolving at all. It's all BS hand holding gameplay with nothing fun or interesting about it.

You're right about 3rd party content, they mainly rely on Zelda, Pokemon, Mario, Metroid etc to have their consoles sell well. Now don't get me wrong these series are great but these series aren't every bodies cup of tea. Zelda can be too puzzling for some, Metroid too dark, Pokemon too and i quote from many of my friends "slow" and Mario, repetitive. Nintendo have had a lot of third party support for the Wii u's launch window but they need to keep that up to hold the fans until they release first party titles like Star fox, they can't just rely on their own company, yet at the same time it can be a good thing, look at Sony for example, they rely too much on third party developers and many of the mascots like Crash and Spyro bit the dust before the PS2 was 4 years old.